Plus Dane Housing Limited (202102052)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102052

Plus Dane Housing Limited

30 September 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident complained about the landlord’s response to reports about the condition of the property including:
1. Boiler.
2. Windows.
3. Kitchen.
4. External doors.
5. Bathroom.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy for the property, owned by the landlord. The tenancy started in March 2015.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord has responsibility to keep the following, in good repair and working order:
1. Its installations for supplying water, gas, electricity, and sanitation.
2. The structure and exterior of the property including outside doors, window sills and frames.
The landlord categorises repairs into the following priorities:
1. Emergency repairs (including out of hours). Such repairs have a response time of four hours to make safe and, a 24–hour completion time for emergency works.
2. Emergency out of hours. Such repairs are those that occur outside of office hours. The landlord will attend to make safe, and the full repair is normally completed during the normal working hours by appointment.
3. Repairs by appointment. These repairs are those considered to not pose an immediate danger or, that causes limited inconvenience. The completion target for these repairs is 28 calendar days.
The repairs policy states that where necessary, the landlord may pre-inspect works to ensure an accurate diagnosis. It explains that examples of this include where repairs or defects are reported to kitchen units.
The landlord’s Asset Management strategy provides the expected life spans for the following components:
1. Gas boilers – 15 years;
2. Windows and external doors – 30 years;
3. Kitchens – 20 years;
4. Bathrooms – 30 years.
It explains that these are based on industry standards and manufacturers guidance. The strategy notes that the overarching decision to replace components is based on age and condition, as assessed by the Asset Team.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains that complaints should be raised as soon as possible after the event occurs, or when the issue comes to the resident’s attention. If a complaint is received more than six months after the event occurred, it will consider whether there was good reason for not making the complaint sooner and whether, despite the delay, it is still possible to investigate the complaint effectively and fairly.

Summary of events

The resident reported low pressure to the boiler and leaking pipework, to the landlord, on 8 June 2020. A contractor attended the same day and recommended that a plumber attend to repair a leak from the hot water pipe and the toilet overflow.
The landlord raised the recommended repairs, though, it is not clear from the information provided if the plumber attended, and if so, when they attended.
On 27 July 2020, the resident reported that the boiler had lost pressure and there was no heating or hot water. From the information provided, this Service has not been able to confirm when the contractor attended the report. On 31 July 2020, a follow on order was raised for a part to the boiler.
On 2 September 2020, the resident reported that the boiler pressure had dropped again. They explained that the issue had been ongoing and requested a new boiler. The landlord raised a repair and requested an inspection to see whether a new boiler was required.
After 2 September 2020, the resident reported a loss of pressure to the boiler, which affected the heating and hot water, approximately eight times up until 27 October 2020. This Service has not been provided with information about whether the contractor attended following the reports, feedback from any visits or, details of any works carried out.
The resident reported the issue with the boiler again on 4 November 2020. When reporting, they said that the contractor had attended the property two weeks prior and left the boiler working. They said that the contractor advised that if the reported issue with the boiler persisted, a full investigation would be required. At the time of making this report, the resident confirmed that they had heating and hot water but when used, this reduced the boiler pressure. No information has been provided to this Service about the investigations that took place following this report.
The resident reported the boiler again on 1 December 2020 and an emergency repair was raised. This was cancelled by the resident on the same day, as they wanted a repair by appointment. Another report about the boiler was made on 4 December 2020. The contractor attended, though it is unclear when, and follow on works were scheduled for 11 December 2020. This appointment was cancelled by the resident, as they were unable to accommodate the appointment. It was rescheduled by the landlord, for 6 January 2021.
The resident called the landlord’s out of hours team on 11 December 2020, to report low pressure to the boiler. They called again on 12 December 2020, to report a loss of heating and hot water. After the report on 12 December, the landlord informed them that it had rescheduled the appointment previously booked for 11 December 2020, to 6 January 2021, as its contractor did not get access to the property.
On 5 January 2021, the resident reported a repair for the rear external door, which they said had water and draft coming through. The information provided does not detail when the landlord attended, however, a follow-on order was raised on 25 March 2021 for the door to be renewed.
On 7 January 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord and said that:

They believed that there had been a lack of service and maintenance to the property in the last five years.
When they moved into the property, they had been informed that the windows, kitchen, bathroom, and external doors would be replaced within a year. However, this had not been done.
The boiler repeatedly had issues with a loss of pressure, and they did not believe that the landlord had taken appropriate action to address this. They reported that on occasions, there was no hot water in the property due to the issue. In addition to this, they said that there had been a loss of heating from the boiler, which was exacerbated by the condition of the external doors, windows, and kitchen.
They had already replaced the bathroom at their own cost, as they did not believe it was fit for purpose.
To resolve the complaint, they wanted the landlord to address the issues noted with the boiler, kitchen, windows, and external doors.

On receipt of the complaint, the landlord reviewed the asset data for information about the installation dates for the boiler, kitchen, windows, and doors in the property, and compared this to the components’ respective estimated life spans.
The landlord requested that the boiler be tested to ensure it was working as expected. It also asked if the investment team could attend and assess the condition of the components against the data it held regarding their expected life spans.
The surveyor responded on 8 January 2021 and confirmed that a stock condition survey had been completed in 2015. The surveyor noted that another stock condition survey was therefore likely due. The surveyor agreed that they could attend but queried whether it would be possible, given the Covid 19 pandemic and the restrictions that had been put in place. There is no evidence that a response was provided to this.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint, on 22 January 2021. In the response it said:
1. It had reviewed the repairs history for the boiler, and found it attended to repair this approximately ten times in the twelve months prior. It apologised for the number of visits that had been required.
2. That the issue with the boiler was the result of a leak on the system, which could not be located initially. It said that a leak sealant had been added to remedy this however, this did not resolve the issue. Therefore, a follow up appointment was scheduled for 18 January 2021 to investigate the issue further, which was later cancelled. It said it understood the system had been working since its last visit.
3. A visit would be arranged in the spring season when the boiler could be shut down for a few hours, to allow it to undertake an investigation of the system.
4. It checked its asset management system and found a stock condition survey had been carried out in 2015. It confirmed the survey data as follows:
  1. The estimated year of installation for the kitchen was 2010.
  2. The windows and doors were those that had been installed when the property was built in 1995.
5. Its standard was to replace kitchens every 20 years on average. Therefore, the kitchen was not due to be replaced until 2030.
6. Its standard was to replace external doors and windows every 30 years. Therefore, it would look to visit the property in the next few years to complete this upgrade. It said that in the meantime, it would ask the Repairs Team Leader to look into improving the issue the resident reported with the condition of the doors and windows.
7. It concluded that the complaint was not upheld, as its records indicated that the kitchen, windows, and doors were not due for replacement, and it responded to the boiler issue each time a report was made.
8. It agreed to arrange for an inspection of the windows, doors, and kitchen so that an assessment could be made as to whether they had deteriorated ahead of their expected lifespan. It said that the surveyor would be in touch with the resident once the Covid 19 lockdown had been eased.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint, on 25 January 2021, as they disagreed with the landlord’s complaint response. They said that:
1. The landlord indicated that it replaced kitchens every 20 years on average however, replaced the kitchen in the property after only 15 years.
2. When they moved into the property in 2015, the member of staff present informed that the kitchen would be replaced “soon” as it was “not the standard” of the landlord. The resident explained that they decided to take the tenancy for the property on this basis.
3. They believed the kitchen required repair or replacement as it had several repair issues within. They reported the following repairs:

(i) Gaps between the kitchen units.

(ii) A faulty extractor fan and inappropriate positioning of the fan.

(iii) Sockets in the kitchen, which they said should have been replaced.

(iv) During the replacement of tiles, mismatching tiles had been installed.

The issue with the front door had been reported in 2015 and they contacted the landlord at that time to inform about draughts due to a gap. Although the landlord attended at the time and carried out repairs, there were still issues with heat being lost through the door.
The rear door of the property was draughty and was not watertight.
There were a number of repairs required to the windows, which had contributed to a loss of heating. They said that following window repairs carried out in 2015, the contractor informed them that all those windows which were broken would be replaced within that year. They reported the following repairs:

(i) Window’s opening too wide.

(ii) Condensation between panes and defective seals.

The boiler issue was ongoing.
That they also had concerns about repairs to the stairs and patio, which were not included in their initial complaint.

The landlord recorded the complaint at stage two and issued its response on 26 February 2021. It reported that:
1. It could not review the complaint concerning the conversations that took place with members of staff in 2015.
2. While its standard is to replace kitchen every 20 years, due to the particular circumstances surrounding the previous tenant of the property, the kitchen was replaced in 2010, five years earlier than expected. The timescale for replacing the kitchen was reset following the replacement.
3. It reviewed photographic records from the time the resident moved in and found that they showed the kitchen at that time, was in good condition. Therefore, it believed that the projected replacement date of 2030 remained.
4. From reviewing the photographs, it found that work was required in the kitchen to make safe a gap between the resident’s cooker and work surface. It confirmed that a surveyor would attend on 2 March 2021 to inspect and determine a resolution to this, as well as the issues reported with the sockets.
5. It could not retile the entire kitchen due to a mismatch of a small number of tiles and while it did its best to match tiles, it could not guarantee an exact replacement.
6. The windows and doors were not due for renewal until 2025 though, it acknowledged a repair report the resident made for the doors in January 2021. It confirmed that repairs had since been raised to install draft proofing to the doors on 29 March 2021.
7. It did not consider the doors in the property to be faulty but, it acknowledged that the type of doors in situ, were not as energy efficient as the modern variations that had since become available.
8. The boiler was renewed in 2012 and in accordance with its life span expectancy, was due for renewal in 2027.
9. There had been a number of visits for the fault to the boiler, however, it understood that the application of the leak sealant had resolved the issue. It said it had not received any further repair reports for the boiler but if the issue recurred, the resident should report this, and it would attend to do additional work.
10. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident, as a result of the issues with the boiler and offered them £150 compensation in recognition of the time taken to resolve the repair.
11. That it had no record of a reported repair to the stairs but, it agreed to inspect this during the survey scheduled for 2 March 2021.
12. Regarding the patio repair, it confirmed an external inspection took place in February 2021 and follow up repairs had been raised with an expected completion date of 20 March 2021.
13. It partially upheld the complaint as there were outstanding repairs to the reported drafty doors, the kitchen, patio, and inspection of the stairs.
14. It explained that from learning from the complaint, it would:

(i) Examine how it records faults to boilers so that it could identify recurring issues and diagnose them sooner;

(ii) Train its staff so that accurate information is given concerning the timescales for replacing major components.

Following the surveyor’s inspection on 2 March 2021, repairs were raised for the:
1. Replacement of the glass in the front door;
2. Window handles;
3. Window hinges.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 26 April 2021 and reported that repairs were outstanding to the property.
The landlord informed this Service that since the complaint had finalised its complaints procedure, it completed the works to the windows and front door and replaced the rear external door. It confirmed that the repairs to the kitchen were outstanding and said that the resident had concerns about the works it proposed to complete in the kitchen.
We contacted the resident to discuss their complaint 28 July 2021 and they confirmed the outstanding complaints. They noted they did not consider the repairs completed to the window were satisfactory, said that the boiler issue was ongoing and that they were awaiting the replacement of their front door. In addition to this, they confirmed their concerns about the repairs proposed to the kitchen. The resident also said that the stairs had been repaired but they were awaiting further investigations to take place to the floorboards. Moreover, the resident said that they had paid for a new bathroom and a replacement wall, due to a leak in the bathroom and wished to claim compensation for this, as they felt that the landlord did not undertake any investigation into the matter.

Assessment and findings.

From the information we have been provided, the earliest reported repair relating to this complaint, was on 8 June 2020, for the boiler. There is no evidence of any repair relating to this complaint, being reported within 12 months prior to this date. Therefore, this assessment will consider the landlord’s response to the repairs reported from 8 June 2020 up to when the complaint finalised the complaints procedure on 26 February 2021.
In respect of the resident’s request for compensation for the works they carried out to the bathroom and wall, we will not consider this in our assessment as this request was not part of the complaint to the landlord. In accordance with the Ombudsman Approved Scheme, we can only investigate complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the report about the boiler condition.

The resident made approximately 15 reports to the landlord about the loss of pressure to the boiler between 8 June 2020 and 13 December 2020. There were periods of time when they reported a complete loss of heating and hot water. While there is evidence that the reports were recorded, no information has been provided by the landlord about the dates the contractors attended, feedback the contractors provided following attendance or, details of the specific works carried out to address the issue in response to the repair reports.
Due to the limited amount of information provided, it is not possible to determine whether the landlord responded to the repairs reported, in line with its repair policy. The landlord’s failure to provide details of what action was taken in response to the reports indicates poor record keeping.
An inspection for the boiler was raised on 2 September 2020, due to the recurring issue, however, there is no evidence to confirm that the landlord took action to arrange this. In addition, following the submission of the complaint, a second request for an inspection to the boiler was requested and there is no indication that this took place. This is a service failure.
When responding to the complaint at stage one, the landlord acknowledged that there had been several visits required to identify the repair and apologised. Although, it deemed the boiler to be working, it confirmed that it would investigate the system, once the weather was warmer.
It did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint on the basis that it responded each time the resident reported the issues, however, other than confirming that it considered the repair to be completed it did not detail its responses to the individual reports made and what information it relied on to decide its response to the boiler repair was appropriate.
At stage two, despite the resident stating in their stage two complaint that the boiler issue was ongoing, the landlord maintained that it believed the boiler was repaired. It advised that it would carry out additional work if the resident were to report again that the boiler lost pressure. The landlord changed its position that it would undertake an investigation of the system and put the responsibility on the resident to report further issues with the boiler. The investigation of the system would have been reasonable given the repeated failure of the boiler over time and would have allowed the landlord to establish the overall condition of the boiler and whether it required further works. There is no evidence of the landlord having arranged or, undertaken the inspection of the boiler as it agreed to do at stage one.
The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the disruption to the heating and hot water and offered compensation in recognition of the time taken to repair the boiler. Any loss of heating and hot water during the winter period would cause inconvenience to a resident therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation in acknowledgment of this.
However, its response to the complaint overall, was not satisfactory. Although it is not disputed that the repairs were attended to, the landlord concluded that it dealt with the reports appropriately and did not provide any explanation as to what assessment it carried out to come to this conclusion. It accepted that there was a delay in repairing the boiler and it was appropriate that it offered compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience they experienced. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report that the issue was ongoing and did not follow through on actions it agreed to take at stage one, to investigate the system further.

The landlord’s response to the reported condition of the windows, kitchen, and front door.

There is no evidence that the resident raised concerns about the condition of the kitchen, windows, doors, in the 12 months prior to the submission of the complaint in January 2021.
The first report about the condition of the respective components was made when the formal complaint was submitted. Therefore, this assessment will consider the landlord’s responses from when the formal complaint was raised.
The resident complained that they had been informed by the landlord in 2015, that the kitchen, windows, bathroom, and external doors would be replaced within a year of the tenancy starting. The landlord responded that it could not investigate the aspect of the complaint dating back to 2015 fairly and effectively. Its decision was reasonable in this regard. Its policy sets out that it expects complaints to be raised as soon as possible after the event occurred or, when it came to the resident’s attention. In this case, the event in question occurred in 2015 however, was not raised as a formal complaint until five years later.
The landlord relied on the data it held from the last stock condition survey carried out to the property, as well as its Asset Management Strategy, to clarify why it did not consider the components for renewal at the time. It also confirmed the expected timeframes for their renewal. This was appropriate.
When the resident challenged why the landlord had replaced the kitchen after 15 years, rather than the expected 20 years, it provided an explanation as to why it did so. The landlord’s Asset Management Strategy states that the decision to replace components is based on assessments carried out by its Asset Team. Therefore, the landlord has the discretion to replace components such as the kitchen ahead of their expected lifespan and in this case, did so based on its assessment at the time.
At stage one, the landlord agreed that a surveyor would arrange an inspection once the Covid 19 lockdown had been eased, so that an inspection of the kitchen, windows and doors could be carried out. An inspection of the components was an appropriate suggestion as it allows the landlord to assess the condition of the components and make an informed decision as to whether they needed any repairs or possibly, a renewal in advance of their expected renewal dates.
It is noted that at the time the landlord issued its stage one response, following lockdown measures put in place by the Government on 5 January 2021, the landlord was operating a limited repairs service. It was only carrying out urgent repairs or, repairs which could be completed quickly in a single visit. Its decision to arrange the inspection once the restrictions were eased, was in line with the Covid 19 guidance in place at the time and therefore was reasonable
At stage two, the resident listed the specific repairs to the windows, front door, and the kitchen. In response, the landlord said that it had reviewed photographs taken of the kitchen when the tenancy started and noted it considered the kitchen was in a good condition at that time. It recognised that repair works were required to the kitchen on the basis of the photographs it reviewed, which were taken when the tenancy started in 2015.
This Service has not been provided with the photographs the landlord reviewed and understands that the photographs would have served as an indication of the condition of the kitchen in the absence of a recent inspection. However, photographs taken in 2015 would not have been reliable in determining the existing condition at the time of the complaint. Therefore, the survey the landlord arranged and carried out on 2 March 2021, was necessary before any repairs were raised to the kitchen.
Regarding the doors, it provided the resident with information about what works it would be completing and when it would be doing so. This was appropriate.
The stage two complaint response did not expressly state what actions the landlord would take regarding to the window repairs the resident reported. However, we are satisfied that the landlord responded to the report about the window appropriately as we have evidence that it inspected the windows on 2 March 2021 and subsequently raised repairs to the windows.
The landlord’s policy provides that the overarching decision to replace components will be based on age and condition, assessed by its Asset Team. Such assessment would be undertaken during an inspection, which the landlord arranged following the resident’s reported concerns about the condition of the components. From this assessment, the landlord determined that repair works were required to the kitchen, doors and windows.
By arranging the survey of the components and identifying the repairs required based on the findings of the survey, the landlord acted in line with its repairs policy. The inspection also allowed the landlord to assess whether any of the components in question were due for renewal before the end of their respective lifespans.
Since the works have been completed to the windows, the resident has raised concerns about their operation. Specifically, they said that the windows now require two people to open them.
In addition to this, when discussing their complaint with us the resident said that they understood that the landlord, after the complaint, had agreed to renew the front door but this this had not been completed. As well as this, the resident has notified this Service that following the completion of the repairs to the stairs, the floorboards are due to be investigated.
This Service is also aware that the landlord has proposed works to the kitchen following the inspection on 2 March 2021, however, the proposed works have not yet been completed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint concerning the condition of the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports about the condition of the kitchen, windows, and front door.

Reasons

It is clear there were ongoing faults with the boiler, and these were recorded however, no documentary evidence has been provided to convey what actions were taken in response to the reports. The landlord did not provide information in its complaint response about what it relied on to support the finding that it responded to the reports appropriately.
An investigation of the system was agreed by the landlord at stage one, and this would have been reasonable to do, given the recurrence of the issue. However, it did not take any action to carry out the investigation. Moreover, after the complaint procedure was finalised, the resident reports that the boiler issue is ongoing. This reinforces that the landlord should have investigated the system as agreed. An order has been made for the landlord to undertake the investigation of the system. In addition to this, an order has also been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation in recognition of its failure to support its finding regarding its response to the reports about the boiler and, failure to complete the investigation it agreed at stage one.
In respect of its response to the condition of the kitchen, windows and front door, the landlord relied on relevant information to determine and respond to queries the resident raised about the components’ lifespans and arranged a survey to assess their current conditions, so that it could make an informed decision about the works required. This was reasonable. This Service notes that the proposed kitchen repairs remain outstanding, and the resident remains unhappy with the repair works completed to the windows, therefore recommendations have been made concerning this.
In addition, the resident is of the understanding that the landlord has agreed to replace the front door and believes that floorboards require investigation following the repairs to the stairs. This Service has not seen communication between the parties regarding these works, therefore, a recommendation has been made in relation to this.

Orders

In recognition of the finding of service failure concerning the landlord’s response to the reports about the boiler:
1. The resident has reported that the boiler issue is ongoing. Given this, I order that the landlord arrange for the boiler to be investigated within four weeks of the date of this report.
2. Once the investigation takes place, the landlord is to confirm its findings and what remedial action it will be taking to address any ongoing fault to the resident within seven working days of the inspection report being completed.
3. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the failure to complete the investigation of the system.

Recommendations

I recommend that the landlord within three weeks:
1. Pay the resident the £150 it previously offered them for the time taken to address the boiler repair if this has not already been paid.
2. In light of the concerns raised by the resident, arrange for a post inspection of the repair works to the window, to determine whether any further repairs or adjustments are necessary.
3. Confirm to the resident, the proposed works to the kitchen. If the resident raises concerns about the works, the parties should work together to try and come to an agreement so that the necessary repairs can be carried out.